bad gamble wrote:
Not a lawyer, but I think many have lost sight of the legal framework Shelby was dealing with and what her options. Doping is strict liability, which means that it's guilty unless proven innocent. Sentencing is different depending on intent/other factors but ultimately you need to prove that either a) your test result is somehow wrong, b) that the substance in your sample got there in a way that you could not reasonably foresee. So her choices (regardless of whether they are true) were:
1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.
2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.
3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.
4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.
5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.
Back in early 2021, Shelby had two choices (2,3) that would enable her to compete at the 2021 Olympics. Proving the lab messed up is difficult or impossible since they have a lot of documentation and experts. Claiming an unforeseeable source gives you more options, but the burden of proof is still difficult. But, it has worked in the past for athletes I alluded to in the examples. The tainted supplement argument would be more likely to succeed; OTC supplements are so commonly tainted that even if they couldn't get a positive test on any of the batches she had, it's easy enough to believe it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-dietary-supplements-are-tainted-with-prescription-drugs/But, claiming this would mean she would miss the Olympics since it would likely get her a 2 year ban. So she want "all in" with the only argument that would maybe let her compete at the Olympics if successful. The cost was that if she lost, she'd miss 2 Olympics. This was a bad gamble.
The reason Nike and BTC are not backing her financially (we presume) is that they know it's a lost cause. It isn't about whether they believe her or not, it's that legally speaking there's not much to go on to appeal a second time. They laid out all their cards, which were pretty weak - non-scientific (hair analysis, lie detector test), and character references from friends (???).
Personally, I think she was either microdosing w/ bad timing/dosing or consumed a tainted supplement. If it is truly the tainted supplement thing, my sympathy for her wore out a while ago because of the BS about the burrito.